binocular wrote:Hm. So you think that those worldly people are just worried about avid Buddhists?

That’s what my experience tells me. Unless it involves politics or fanatics from other faith, i don’t see much complexity in such stereotype.

Come to think of it, perhaps worldly people simply think that affection and any kind of business interest would be wasted on an avid Buddhist, so they shun those Buddhists, or indirectly or directly threaten to shun them.

I actually think that this can be applied to followers of any religions. Christians that take Jesus' teachings on worldly wealth seriously, Hindus that take the ascetic path, etc. There are Buddhists that pursue worldly success and the spiritual life at the same time (canonically obviously Anathapindaka but many who are alive today as well) much as there are Christians/Muslims/Hindus who do the same. It is also important to remember the Pali Canon has pieces such as the Mangala Sutta which are clearly aimed at those who are still in the world.

For all practical intents and purposes, being a Buddhist means that one will quite likely be a loser in worldly terms. Not necessarily a doormat, but quite likely a loser.There is a real, visible, measurable worldly price that one has to be willing to pay for practicing Buddhism.

He turns his mind away from those phenomena, and having done so, inclines his mind to the property of deathlessness: 'This is peace, this is exquisite — the resolution of all fabrications; the relinquishment of all acquisitions; the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding.' (Jhana Sutta - Thanissaro Bhikkhu translation)

Even if Buddhists are losers in worldly terms what does that really mean? Being a winner means having to be around people all the time, make money, gain fame, entertain people (I could go on and on) Why is it really so bad to be a loser? For me personally it doesn't sound to bad to know we're all worthless it's like a weight lifted off your shoulders to know that you're worth nothing.Quite simply it feels like freedom. I think the real problem is everyone thinks they're special and destined for greatness and fame, renown...blah blah blah and as a result you have all these SELF THOUGHT supermodels, intellects, movie stars, w.e. Seriously being a loser is probably the best thing in the world to be Using the literal meaning and playing off the word

I saw two separate threads about two elder monks (20 or so years in robe) leaving the Order due to falling in love with two women. From the posts there it seems some considered them as losers, I do feel the same. I remember reading Buddha saying one who disrobe due to a woman is similar to a warrior who run away after losing the battle.

Also, I heard a story where a boy asking permission to ordain and the parents and relatives accused him of being a looser for not developing a career, earning money, having a wife and children...

In the end three of them are Buddhist losers in their respective context. But I think in Dhamma way becoming the biggest loser (an Arahant) is the highest goal which will make one to lose the Samsara for ever.

Can you lose things that are not truly yours in the first place? You can build beautiful and elaborate sandcastles and enjoy them while they last. You just can't take them home with you.

"Monks, there are these two searches: ignoble search & noble search. And what is ignoble search? There is the case where a person, being subject himself to birth, seeks [happiness in] what is likewise subject to birth. Being subject himself to aging... illness... death... sorrow... defilement, he seeks [happiness in] what is likewise subject to illness... death... sorrow... defilement.

"And what may be said to be subject to aging... illness... death... sorrow... defilement? Spouses & children... men & women slaves... goats & sheep... fowl & pigs... elephants, cattle, horses, & mares... gold & silver [2] are subject to aging... illness... death... sorrow... defilement. Subject to aging... illness... death... sorrow... defilement are these acquisitions, and one who is tied to them, infatuated with them, who has totally fallen for them, being subject to birth, seeks what is likewise subject to aging... illness... death... sorrow... defilement. This is ignoble search.

The Blessed One said, "Gain arises for an uninstructed run-of-the-mill person. He does not reflect, 'Gain has arisen for me. It is inconstant, stressful, & subject to change.' He does not discern it as it actually is.

Denisa wrote:I saw two separate threads about two elder monks (20 or so years in robe) leaving the Order due to falling in love with two women. From the posts there it seems some considered them as losers, I do feel the same. I remember reading Buddha saying one who disrobe due to a woman is similar to a warrior who run away after losing the battle.

I would not be so judgmental, not knowing the all that was at play in their choices.

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.People live in one another’s shelter.

tiltbillings wrote:I would not be so judgmental, not knowing the all that was at play in their choices.

You mean something like that the woman threatened the monk: "if you don't marry me I'll commit suicide!" So, out of compassion to save that being, the monk let go of his robe and celibacy... Could be!

For sure my feeling towards that issue is not THE final judgment, neither yours, but I believe Dhamma has enough medicine for this kind of situations if one is mindful and willing to apply them, especially after 20 years being a monk of some note!

EDIT: Sometimes I noticed a bit of "minimisation" when come to such issues.

Last edited by Denisa on Tue Jun 03, 2014 6:26 am, edited 1 time in total.

pegembara wrote:Can you lose things that are not truly yours in the first place? You can build beautiful and elaborate sandcastles and enjoy them while they last. You just can't take them home with you.

62. The fool worries, thinking, "I have sons, I have wealth." Indeed, when he himself is not his own, whence are sons, whence is wealth?

tiltbillings wrote:I would not be so judgmental, not knowing the all that was at play in their choices.

You mean something like that the woman threatened the monk: "if you don't marry me I'll commit suicide!" So, out of compassion to save that being, the monk let go of his robe and celibacy... Could be!

For sure my feeling towards that issue is not THE final judgment, neither yours, but I believe Dhamma has enough medicine for this kind of situations if one is mindful and willing to apply them, especially after 20 years being a monk of some note!

EDIT: Sometimes I noticed a bit of "minimisation" when come to such issues.

No blackmailing of a monk implied. Also, I never said my feelings were the final judgment, nor have I implied much less said anything about yours. Simply, unless the once-monk tells you why he has done what he has done, not being a mind reading Buddha, we simply do not know why he has opted to act the way he has. And being a monk is not necessarily the sine qua non of Dhamma practice.

Sometimes I noticed a bit of "minimisation" when come to such issues.

Movtivation for behavior is often very difficult to determine. Given the case of Japanese monk (the other of whom I know nothing), I am more than willing to give him the benefit of consideration, given his experience and age.

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.People live in one another’s shelter.

Oh dear... the reason I mentioned the two monks and ALSO THE BOY is to talk about losers as examples from both sides taking the face value of the stories, nothing else, I didn't even mentioned names. Because from the boy's relatives point of view, monks leaving the Order and going back to join the lay life would be the correct thing -- a winner. I never thought it might go this far!

tiltbillings wrote:

Sometimes I noticed a bit of "minimisation" when come to such issues.

Movtivation for behavior is often very difficult to determine. Given the case of Japanese monk (the other of whom I know nothing), I am more than willing to give him the benefit of consideration, given his experience and age.

If he had disrobed and lived a solitary life, that would have been a different matter. But to disrobe and get married to a wealthy beautician, now that indicates lust. I just wonder what are the reactions will be if the Dalai Lama disrobes and marries Madonna (tongue in cheek). Anyway, letting go can be practiced either way...

From Dhammapada:

13. Just as rain breaks through an ill-thatched house, so passion penetrates an undeveloped mind.

19. Much though he recites the sacred texts, but acts not accordingly, that heedless man is like a cowherd who only counts the cows of others — he does not partake of the blessings of the holy life.

259. A man is not versed in Dhamma because he speaks much. He who, after hearing a little Dhamma, realizes its truth directly and is not heedless of it, is truly versed in the Dhamma.

However, about the Japanese monk (since you mentioned): I already mentioned in another thread in Lounge that I have a friend in Thailand. She also a beautician who took meditation instructions from the Japanese monk. In the beginning of January 2012, she told me something an affair between the Japanese monk and another beautician, that's I think more than one year before his leaving the robe. Anyway, this is my last post about the Japanese monk.

Assuming the beautician story is true, which is questionable; however, assuming it is not, getting married or not, standing on the outside, looking at the surface, motivation remains elusive. Also, calling loser/winner is irrelevant.

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.People live in one another’s shelter.

robertk wrote:For all practical intents and purposes, being a Buddhist means that one will quite likely be a loser in worldly terms. Not necessarily a doormat, but quite likely a loser.There is a real, visible, measurable worldly price that one has to be willing to pay for practicing Buddhism.

Perhaps we can examine this idea on this thread.[/quote]

I think it's difficult to generalise, but presumably Buddhists are less concerned with worldly gain and success - or at least less worried if it doesn't happen. So the priorities for a Buddhist are probably different.

"I ride tandem with the random, Things don't run the way I planned them, In the humdrum."Peter Gabriel lyric

I can recall an agonizing day in which many troubles regarding interactions with other people kept plaguing my mind. I could find almost no peace at all, and upon investigation discovered that i was suffering from 'status anxiety'. I contemplated how the Buddha had said that 'praise and blame' are just these worldly conditions that always alternate for us, and I thought "what would it be like to let go of this status anxiety, and really and truly stop caring what other people think about me - to really not give a rats' about it, to only listen to wise folks whom I respect, and as for the fools, to really and truly not worry about what they think of me?" And somehow I was able to let go for a while. As I walked down the street that day, going to this vacant car park that I sometimes use for walking meditation, I can recall how happy I felt, and I thought "wow I never knew how blissful it could be, to live without attachment to either praise or blame in this life". I noticed that, for the rest of that day, people seemed to be able to sense my new attitude, and actually treated me with a bit more respect than usual. I really ought to try it more often. In other words, who cares if some folks label us as 'losers'? In their minds maybe, but really why should we give a rats' what they think? I would say that my overall happiness level is now higher than at any other time since early childhood, despite my status according to mainstream society being quite low (I'm currently unemployed and always struggling to get by from week to week in the material sense). But I don't call that being a 'loser' in any way...although my mind can still give me quite a bit of trouble if I let it, overall, I'm more content than I have been in years. And not because everything is ok all the time, just because, the Dhamma seems to have that effect over the long term...

In order to lose something, first, one has to posses it (either material or immaterial). Those who goes after gain, status, censure, and pleasure will someday face loss, disgrace, praise, and pain. Therefore one who posses less lose less, perhaps nothing.

Denisa wrote:In order to lose something, first, one has to posses it (either material or immaterial). Those who goes after gain, status, censure, and pleasure will someday face loss, disgrace, praise, and pain. Therefore one who posses less lose less, perhaps nothing.

Very good reasoning.

Actually nothing is in our possesion. Our body, feeling, perceptions, mental formation, consciousness - all this is out of our full control, so we dont "have" it, it's not our proprety.